Fatherland
Length Of Time In Possession : 4 weeks
Fatherland, by Robert Harris alongside Laurent Binet's HHhH was my book clubs choice this month.
The novel takes place in an alternate universe in which Germany and not the UK/USA won World War 2. It is now the mid Sixties, Adolf Hitler is still the Fuhrer and the nation is gearing up to celebrate his 75th birthday. In the midst of this, policeman Xavier March is on hand when a corpse is discovered and from there, uncovers a dark conspiracy.
I found myself slightly frustrated with Fatherland. The concept of a Nazi victory is a really interesting idea, particularly from the perspective of the victorious nations, the UK and the USA and how those countries and thus the globe in itself would have differed as a result. England and most of Europe under German rule, no setting up of the United Nations, no Israel etc. Fatherland however is not that book.
Instead the focus is Germany itself, and what is Germany like under a German victory? Well, exactly what it was like during war and pre-war Nazi Germany, obviously! The Germany depicted actually feels like post-war East Germany which fell to Communists and the Secret Police as depicted in the wonderful 2006 film The Lives Of Others. It's hard to not see this as an opportunity wasted. Instead the focus on the impact on Germany itself feels rather self-explanatory, than in any way exploring something new.
SPOILERS FOLLOW.
The changes in the world mentioned aren't exactly that major or delved into in any way. Joe Kennedy, John F Kennedy's father became President instead, Heydrich survived his assassination attempt, the Nazis bombed New York and then became the Cold War opponents, Russia and the US are allies. These aren't really spoilers of Fatherland, as each is only mentioned in the briefest passing.
In the end the central conceit of Fatherland is that policeman Xavier March uncovers a conspiracy to cover up what the Germans did during the Final Solution and is rocked by the revelation of the Holocaust.
This entire premise is laughable on pretty much every level.
Firstly, the Nazis weren't the least bit ashamed of their solution to "the Jewish question", didn't consider Jews fully human, and thought they were absolutely doing the right thing. So the idea that they would try and hush it up on either a national or international level is bogus.
Secondly, the presupposition is apparently that by removing the 12 architects of the Final Solution, Heydrich eliminates the proof that it ever even happened. This is stupid beyond words. What about the 100s of SS officers who worked in those camps? The doctors, the train drivers, the local agents who rounded people up, and then by extension their families and friends. They all knew what was going on. Likewise the SS WAGs of whom there are many astonishing pictures. What about the Vel d'Hiv round up in Paris? That wasn't even the Germans it was the French police!!!!
Many Jews got out both to the UK and to the US and Canada, before the supposed Nazi victory. It was known, and in a widespread way.
Thirdly, through March there is this notion that the 'average German' believed the lie that the Jews had en masse been deported to Russia, and any disquiet they felt they kept quiet about. This is like saying that across Germany millions of adults believed their parents that their dog was happily living on a farm, when it was in fact dead. Many 'average Germans' (and Dutch and French) risked and lost their lives hiding Jews in their homes. Why? Because they knew they were getting killed en masse that's why!!!!
So expecting anyone to believe any of this is balderdash and the entire concept holds no water.
A disappointment.
Verdict : 5/10
Destination : Charity Shop
Showing posts with label Germany. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Germany. Show all posts
Tuesday, 30 April 2013
Book #32 HHhH by Laurent Binet
HHhH
Length of Time In Possession : 3 weeks
So I follow C, with another book with just a letter for the title. In this case HHhH stands for 'Himmlers Hirn heisst Heydrich' - meaning Himmler's Brain is called Heydrich, the phrase which circulated in Nazi Germany to indicate that though Himmler had more power, Heydrich was the brains behind the outfit.
Written by French author Laurent Binet, it won the Prix Goncourt (the French version of the Booker Prize) in 2010. This translation by Sam Taylor has since made a splash over this side of the Channel, selling well and was chosen by my book club this month.
HHhH is an odd book. Ostensibly the story of two Czech heroes Jozef Gabčík and Jan Kubiš, sent by British Intelligence to assassinate Heydrich, then the Protector of Bohemia and Moravia. (now known as the Czech Republic and Slovakia) One of Hitler's highest operatives Reinhard Heydrich was also the brains behind The Final Solution.
On the one hand the novel is this story and on the other it is the story of Binet himself reflecting on the process of writing the novel as he goes along, and on the nature of historical fiction itself.
Oddly, the novel has been marketed as fiction, which as it is about a) a historical event and b) a writers autobiography on the process of writing it, seems a slightly strange marketing decision, unless as a classic example of metafiction, what the author presents about the writing process is actually untrue.
Binet talks at length about wanting to keep imagination and supposition out of HHhH which would make the novel not a work of historical fiction but a history book.
The trouble was that the more Binet discussed the differences between what he was doing and a work of historical fiction : inventing the clothes people wore or their conversations for literary effect etc, the more I wished I was reading the book he didn't want to write!
I found myself thinking of Wolf Hall, Hilary Mantel's imagining of Thomas Cromwell and wishing I was reading or could read the same style of novel about Reinhard Heydrich. Suggestions welcome.
Whilst discussing the writing process with the reader as you go is an original thing to do, (I know there may be other examples of this but HHhH was a first in this regard for me) Binet unfortunately becomes quite irritating the more you go on throughout the book.
The first example of this is discussion of a book that only exists in German about Heydrich that he is considering using for research, after some debate he decides he doesn't need it. Two sections later he makes reference to its content, and then says he changed his mind, whilst this is an intriguing insight into the thought process of any and all writers, it becomes very repetitious throughout the novel.
Ultimately it detracts from the story of Jozef Gabčík and Jan Kubiš, which is whatever way you look at it an amazing tale of bravery and heroism, of which I was hitherto unaware. Throughout, Binet's central desire is that he wants to do these two heroes real justice and part of me feels in a way that he failed to do so, by the over insertion of himself into this narrative.
That said, from a point of view of challenging how we talk about historical figures in literature and in challenging accepted form and style, you have to admire and respect this book on an intellectual and artistic level. Ultimately my problem was that whilst I admired it, I ended up wishing the book hadn't been this way.....
Verdict : 8/10
Destination : Charity Shop
Length of Time In Possession : 3 weeks
So I follow C, with another book with just a letter for the title. In this case HHhH stands for 'Himmlers Hirn heisst Heydrich' - meaning Himmler's Brain is called Heydrich, the phrase which circulated in Nazi Germany to indicate that though Himmler had more power, Heydrich was the brains behind the outfit.
Written by French author Laurent Binet, it won the Prix Goncourt (the French version of the Booker Prize) in 2010. This translation by Sam Taylor has since made a splash over this side of the Channel, selling well and was chosen by my book club this month.
HHhH is an odd book. Ostensibly the story of two Czech heroes Jozef Gabčík and Jan Kubiš, sent by British Intelligence to assassinate Heydrich, then the Protector of Bohemia and Moravia. (now known as the Czech Republic and Slovakia) One of Hitler's highest operatives Reinhard Heydrich was also the brains behind The Final Solution.
On the one hand the novel is this story and on the other it is the story of Binet himself reflecting on the process of writing the novel as he goes along, and on the nature of historical fiction itself.
Oddly, the novel has been marketed as fiction, which as it is about a) a historical event and b) a writers autobiography on the process of writing it, seems a slightly strange marketing decision, unless as a classic example of metafiction, what the author presents about the writing process is actually untrue.
Binet talks at length about wanting to keep imagination and supposition out of HHhH which would make the novel not a work of historical fiction but a history book.
The trouble was that the more Binet discussed the differences between what he was doing and a work of historical fiction : inventing the clothes people wore or their conversations for literary effect etc, the more I wished I was reading the book he didn't want to write!
I found myself thinking of Wolf Hall, Hilary Mantel's imagining of Thomas Cromwell and wishing I was reading or could read the same style of novel about Reinhard Heydrich. Suggestions welcome.
Whilst discussing the writing process with the reader as you go is an original thing to do, (I know there may be other examples of this but HHhH was a first in this regard for me) Binet unfortunately becomes quite irritating the more you go on throughout the book.
The first example of this is discussion of a book that only exists in German about Heydrich that he is considering using for research, after some debate he decides he doesn't need it. Two sections later he makes reference to its content, and then says he changed his mind, whilst this is an intriguing insight into the thought process of any and all writers, it becomes very repetitious throughout the novel.
Ultimately it detracts from the story of Jozef Gabčík and Jan Kubiš, which is whatever way you look at it an amazing tale of bravery and heroism, of which I was hitherto unaware. Throughout, Binet's central desire is that he wants to do these two heroes real justice and part of me feels in a way that he failed to do so, by the over insertion of himself into this narrative.
That said, from a point of view of challenging how we talk about historical figures in literature and in challenging accepted form and style, you have to admire and respect this book on an intellectual and artistic level. Ultimately my problem was that whilst I admired it, I ended up wishing the book hadn't been this way.....
Verdict : 8/10
Destination : Charity Shop
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)